1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Criminal Revision No. 369 of 2021

Sanjay Sahu, S/o Gendram Sahu, aged about 30 years, R/o Village –

Avrethi, Police Station – Simga, District - Balodabazar – Bhatapara (C.G.)

(not in jail)

---- Applicant

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, Through: S.H.O., Police Station – Komakhan,

District – Mahasamund (C.G.)

----Respondent

For Applicant : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr. Dinesh Tiwari, Dy. Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi

Order On Board

02.08.2021

(1)

The proceedings of matter have been taken-up through Video

Conferencing.

(2)

This revision is directed against the order dated 08.6.2021 passed by

Special Judge (The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012) Fast

Track Court, Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund in Special Criminal Case

(POCSO) No. 20/2021 whereby charges under Sections 363/109, 366/109, 376

(2) (<)/109 of the IPC and Section 6/17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 (henceforth “POCSO Act”) has been framed against the

applicant.

(3)

The facts of the case in brief is that minor victim/prosecutrix and main

accused of this case namely Parmanand Miri were having lover affair with each

other. In the night of 13.03.2021, main accused abducted her with the help of

2

other co-accused persons, and one of the co-accused persons is present

applicant – Sanjay Sahu. They took her to village Pacheda (Abhanpur) in the

maternal uncle's house of main accused – Parmanand Miri in the Bolero vehicle

bearing registration No. CG-04-M 2436 (henceforth “Bolero vehicle”) and there

main accused – Parmanand Miri committed rape upon her. On being reported

the matter by father of the victim/prosecutrix, police of police Station Komakhan

registered the crime under Section 363 of the IPC and after recovery of

victim/prosecutrix from the possession of main accused – Parmanand Miri on

15.03.2021, statements of the victim/prosecutrix and other witnesses were

recorded by the police.

(4)

After usual investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the applicant

and three other co-accused persons under Section 363, 366, 376 (2) (<), 34 of

the Indian Penal Code and Sections 6, 17 & 21 of the POCSO Act.

(5)

After considering the material available with the charge sheet, learned trial

Court, vide impugned order dated 8.6.2021, framed charges against the

applicant as mentioned in paragraph 2 to this order, which has been challenged

by the applicant by filing the instant revision petition.

(6)

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that main accused of this case

is Parmanand Miri, with whom, the victim/prosecutrix was having love affair. He

further submits that present applicant is driver of the said bolero vehicle, who is

bound to comply with the order of his owner. The present applicant did not know

about the said incident. None of the witnesses, even victim/prosecutrix, have

stated in their statement that applicant was aware with the incident and

knowingly well about incident, he involved in the said incident. Although,

victim/prosecutrix has identified the applicant and bolero vehicle but except this

no other incriminating evidence has been collected by the prosecution with

regard to involvement of the applicant in the crime in question, therefore,

necessary ingredients have not been attracted against the applicant but learned

trial Court, without properly appreciating the documents available in the record,

has framed such charges of heinous crime against the applicant, which is

3

erroneous and not sustainable in law and, therefore, the impugned order

deserves to be set aside and the applicant be discharged from the charges

framed against him by the trial Court.

(7)

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, while opposing the

arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant, would